SSPX Info, updates and interviews

  • Thread starter Thread starter prettiefly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

prettiefly

Guest
The following is a translation of the internal letter sent by Bishop Bernard Fellay to the three other Bishops of the SSPX:

The Most Reverend Tissier de Mallerais, Williamson, and de Galarreta
Code: 
   Your Excellencies, 

Your collective letter addressed to the members of the General Council received our full attention. We thank you for your solicitude and charity. Allow us in our turn, with the same concern for justice and charity, to make the following observations. 

First of all, the letter indeed mentions the gravity of the crisis gripping the Church and precisely analyzes the nature of the ambient errors that pullulate in the Church. Nonetheless, the description is marred by two defects in relation to the reality in the Church: it is lacking in a supernatural spirit and at the same time it lacks realism. 

The description lacks a supernatural spirit. To read your letter, one seriously wonders if you still believe that the visible Church whose seat is at Rome is indeed the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Church horribly disfigured, to be sure, a planta pedis usque ad verticem capitis, but a Church that in spite of all still has as its head Our Lord Jesus Christ. One gets the impression that you have been so scandalized that you no longer accept that it can still be the true Church. For you, it would seem to be a question whether Benedict XVI is still the legitimate pope. And if he is, there is a question as to whether Jesus Christ can still speak through him. If the pope expresses a legitimate will concerning us which is good and which does not order anything contrary to the commandments of God, have we the right to neglect or to dismiss this will? Otherwise, on what principle do you base your actions? Do you not believe that if Our Lord commands us, He will also give us the means to carry on our work? Now, the pope has let us know that an abiding concern for the regularization of our situation for the good of the Church lies at the very heart of his pontificate, and also that he knew very well that it would be easier both for him and for us to leave things as they stand now. And so it is indeed a decided and legitimate will that he is expressing. 

With the attitude you recommend, no room is left for the Gideons or the Davids or for those who count on the Lord’s help. You reproach us with being naïve or fearful, but rather it is your vision of the Church that is too human, and even fatalistic. You see the dangers, the plots, the difficulties, but you no longer see the assistance of grace and of the Holy Ghost. If one grants that Divine Providence leads the affairs of men while safeguarding their liberty, it is also needful to admit that the gestures in our favor over the last several years are also under its guidance. Now, they trace a line  — not straight — but clearly in favor of Tradition. Why should this suddenly stop when we are doing our utmost to be faithful and to intensify our prayer? Will the good God let us fall at the most critical moment? That does not make a lot of sense, especially as we are not trying to impose on Him the least self-will, but are trying to examine events closely so as to discern what God wants, and being disposed to all that shall please Him. At the same time, your description is lacking in realism as regards both the degree of the errors and their extent.
Due to space constraints, here is a link to the rest of the letter:
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/letter-of-general-council-of-society-of.html

http://www.sspx.org/theological_commission/sspx_joined_hearts_red89.gif
 
I couldn’t think of way to get around the 6,000 character limit for CAF posts; post a link, of course!

I found +Fellay’s letter very heartening and I pray that more people read it. I’m especially concerned that hardliners may break way in response to a reconciliation. Let’s pray that doesn’t happen.
 
Rich C;9286802I found +Fellay’s letter very heartening and I pray that more people read it. I’m especially concerned that hardliners may break way in response to a reconciliation. Let’s pray that doesn’t happen. [/QUOTE said:
I hope it doesn’t happen, either, for the sake of unity and for all having a regularized canonical status. But I have to admit that there is a part of me that thinks it will be good to have the “closet” sedavacantists and other extremists no longer part of the society.

Let’s continue to pray that God’s will be done in this matter.

Sancte Pie Decime, ora pro nobis!
  • PAX
Click to expand...
 
EcceAgnusDei said:
I hope it doesn’t happen, either, for the sake of unity and for all having a regularized canonical status. But I have to admit that there is a part of me that thinks it will be good to have the “closet” sedavacantists and other extremists no longer part of the society.

Let’s continue to pray that God’s will be done in this matter.

Sancte Pie Decime, ora pro nobis!
  • PAX
Click to expand...
I understand what you say especially when I read the following from an SSPX bulletin (page 6):

Motu Proprio Masses: One thing is to encourage priests to celebrate the true Mass, but it is another thing to encourage our faithful to attend such Masses. The reason being that in addition to the Traditional Liturgy, sound doctrine is also required, and this latter is called into question when a priest, albeit in good faith, accepts the doctrinal rectitude of the NOM in theory or in practice.
 
I note that at the end there is this mention:
An exchange of private letters between the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X and the three other bishops was circulated on the Internet on May 9, 2012. This behavior is reprehensible. The person who breached the confidentiality of this internal correspondence committed a serious sin.
Click to expand...
 
ProVobis said:
The letter was sent April 14th, almost a month ago.
Click to expand...
Yes and it is very indicative of the diverse environment that Bishop Fellay must keep united and bring into full communion with Rome. SSPX in not immune to similar problems that affect the regular parishes, they have their own brand of “liberals” and “conservatives”.
 
We are so close to healing this divide. The SSPX can give an injection to our church and help save it, and help end the 40 year nightmare. We are so close. Vatican Insider (La Stampa) just posted that the deal is probably going to be signed in days. I so very mush hope so. If the other SSPX Bishops don’t follow then let them go!!!
 
Wow. So now we have a hint of the tremendous amount of pressure Bishop Fellay has faced and is currently facing.
 
Strange. I expect Bp. Williamson to oppose any reconciliation, but weren’t the other two part of the discussions at some point? I have not heard anything about them being unreasonable men, so I wonder what compels them to have so little faith in their superior, the pope, and these discussions.

Then again, perhaps Bp. Williamson has simply stolen all their crazy thunder!
 
sw85 said:
Strange. I expect Bp. Williamson to oppose any reconciliation, but weren’t the other two part of the discussions at some point? I have not heard anything about them being unreasonable men, so I wonder what compels them to have so little faith in their superior, the pope, and these discussions.

Then again, perhaps Bp. Williamson has simply stolen all their crazy thunder!
Click to expand...
I can’t speak for what is making them resist reconciliation, but it is human nature to fear change. Not only that, for years, the identity of the SSPX has been that of the resistors to modernism, VAT II and the post-conciliar church.

Some may wonder what they will be left with. In other words, what will differentiate the SSPX from the FSSP and other groups.

That’s just my opinion.
 
TrueLight said:
Some may wonder what they will be left with. In other words, what will differentiate the SSPX from the FSSP and other groups.
Click to expand...
I’m of the strong opinion those who reconcile with Rome will no longer be called members of the FSSPX. But it’s only one opinion.
 
ProVobis said:
I’m of the strong opinion those who reconcile with Rome will no longer be called members of the FSSPX. But it’s only one opinion.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I’m not sure if I agree with you. If the Superior General of the Society reconciles with Rome, than I would assume the name would go with him. My assumption would be that those who do not go along would reform themselves into a different society (like the SSPV did). I wonder what name they would choose…

I hope this is how it happens, so that it is clear the the SSPX, by name, is in the Church, and that those who do not go along have to create a new group with a different name.
  • PAX
 
I would think that the SSPX is actually incorporated for secular reasons (ie; taxes), so whomever owns the rights to the name would get to keep the name.

Prayers going out to His Grace Fellay and the rest of the Society, because there’s obviously some division happening there.
 
Melchior said:
I would think that the SSPX is actually incorporated for secular reasons (ie; taxes), so whomever owns the rights to the name would get to keep the name.
Click to expand...
Businesses change their names all the time. Sometimes they identify themselves for tax purposes, etc with a “dba” distinction. (“doing business as”)

But that said, if they’re going to use anything for tax purposes, it would be FSSPX and not SSPX, though I think the IRS would like to see it fully spelled out. 🙂
 
ProVobis said:
Gut feel? 🙂

Seriously, isn’t this what happened to the other orders, such as the FSSP and that other recent group, whose name escapes me at the moment?
Click to expand...
The founding priests of the FSSP left the SSPX, so they had to have a new name. It was a different circumstance.
  • PAX
 
EcceAgnusDei said:
The founding priests of the FSSP left the SSPX, so they had to have a new name. It was a different circumstance.
  • PAX
Click to expand...
You could be right. Personally I’ve always been turned off by that "X’ in their “name.” Yes, I know it’s stands for tenth but someone not knowing the Roman numerals could presume something else.
 
ProVobis said:
You could be right. Personally I’ve always been turned off by that "X’ in their “name.” Yes, I know it’s stands for tenth but someone not knowing the Roman numerals could presume something else.
Click to expand...
Maybe they could leave it out and become the Society of Saints Pius, and thereby include all those canonized Piuses 😉
  • PAX
 
I LOVE the X! They need to keep the X! It’s like they’re X-Men!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top